|
Dash, D. P. (1999). Vocabulary of agency: Development and
assessment of a generic conceptual framework to guide action-oriented research
in multiple domains [PhD Thesis]. |
Chapter 10
Conclusions
and Future Directions
10.1
Conclusions
10.1.1 Main Results
The study involved the
development and a subsequent assessment of a generic conceptual framework for
action-oriented research to guide such research in various domains of
application. The development of the framework involved: (i) a review of a broad
range of literature pertaining to action-oriented research, (ii) an exploration
of the practice of action-oriented research in
The conceptual framework
makes the following contributions to the current academic debates in management
systems thinking and action research fields (see Section 8.4 for a more
detailed description):
a) It circumvents the dichotomy between
‘normal’ research and the proposed alternatives.
b) It introduces new thinking for the
future of action research.
c) It contributes to the demarcation
debate.
d) It suggests a model of research
utilisation based on capacity building.
e) It elaborates the research thinking
in organisational cybernetics and system dynamics.
f)
It elaborates and complements the idea of recoverability.
g) It identifies additional concerns
for soft operational research.
h) It articulates some research issues
concerning ‘methodological pluralism’.
i)
It links action research and management systems thinking.
The post mortem
studies presented in Chapter 9 in which two action-oriented research projects
were reinterpreted and discussed in terms of the vocabulary of agency
indicate the following qualities of the generic conceptual framework (see
Section 9.4 for a more detailed description):
a) It provides one way of discussing an
action-oriented research project critically and constructively.
b) It brings many crucial issues
together under a conceptual framework using a specific vocabulary thus
facilitating research communication.
c) It opens up a number of
possibilities for visualising how research might contribute in a practical
situation requiring some kind of support and betterment.
d) Thus, it opens up many choices for
designing action-oriented research projects and new ways of specifying their
results.
e) It indicates alternative research
strategies in multi-actor contexts.
f)
It helps articulate the role of researchers in action-oriented research
projects.
g) It identifies the place of
creativity and innovation in an action research project.
h) It also provides a way to identify
what might be derived as results of more general interest and how such results
might contribute to different research projects in future.
These results show that the
conceptual framework (expressed as the vocabulary of agency) has a
certain generality in addressing a whole range of conceptual issues being
discussed in management systems thinking and action research fields. Besides,
the framework also seems capable of functioning as an effective guide in
designing and conducting action-oriented research projects in several domains
of application.
It might be worthwhile in
this chapter to reflect on the kind of conceptual and practical contribution
the framework makes and the kind of demands it makes on researchers engaged in
achieving action-oriented and research-oriented results from practical
projects.
10.1.2 Conceptual and Practical
Contribution
The present study found
that the literature of action research highlights some of the pitfalls
of adhering literally to some preconceived notion of ‘scientific research’ in
dealing with human, organisational, and social problems. The commentators on
action research argue that the ‘knowledge’ generated by rigorous research might
not be sufficient to achieve the desired improvements in such problem
situations. Besides the emergence of such ‘knowledge’ might take an
indefinitely long time. Most practical situations require that context-specific
‘knowledge’ be produced within the situation, in a time-bound manner. The
literature in this area also points out that some of the more relevant human
phenomena are not at all amenable to external observation, e.g., the principles
and notions human beings use in carrying out actions. Such awareness in
combination with the demand on professional researchers to be useful within
practical contexts has led to the emergence of a number of action research
approaches which deal with human, organisational, and social problem situations
so as to bring about the required improvements. Most of these approaches seem
to focus on creating (or improving) the situation-specific ‘knowledge’ that
would ameliorate the problem situation. Most of these approaches highlight the
need for encouraging and allowing people to define their own problems, solve
such problems in groups, share experiences, have critical and constructive
conversations, reflect on their own behaviour and actions, adopt the
inquisitive and critical mind-set of a researcher, articulate and use their own
‘local knowledge’, be helpful towards each other, etc.
However, as described in
detail in Chapter 3, the action research literature has engendered a whole host
of academic debates concerning the nature, quality, and implications of the
above type of work. The action-like component of such work might be
self-evident; but the research-like component is not always so evident in
itself. Occasionally, there have been attempts to rescue some type of research
thinking in the action research literature. But these attempts have ironically
ended up either in the same type of scientific thinking that was itself being
criticised (e.g., attempts relying on some form of falsificationism) or
in interpretative or deconstructionist types of model for scholarly work thus
producing multiple voices in the academic literature with very little
possibility of any constructive conversation among the voices. It seemed
that the impasse in this area is not likely to be dissolved without the
introduction of some fresh ways of articulating the debates and the proposals.
The present study found
that the literature of management systems thinking also highlights some
of the pitfalls of misapplying scientific reductionism especially in dealing
with certain problems of planning and control. However, this literature makes
use of a meta-disciplinary vocabulary (i.e., the vocabulary of
systems) in developing and guiding a varied range of management systems
approaches. These management systems approaches seem to exemplify, in their
various ways, the possibility of doing practically useful work for specific
clients while also seeking to produce some form of systematic body of
knowledge. In some cases such knowledge takes the form of ‘knowing-that’
pertaining to certain classes of systems (expressed in varying degrees of
formalism); in some other cases it takes the form of ‘knowing-how’ or
‘knowing-from-within’ seeking to accomplish some desired effects in practical
situations using some ‘systems methodologies’ (i.e., ways of co-ordinating
activities, communications, observations, etc.) (for an explication of these
different forms of knowing in relation to management systems thinking, see
Tsouvalis and Checkland, 1996).
This literature offers a
remarkably different perspective with regard to the types of debate witnessed
in the action research literature. The vocabulary of systems seem to
make it possible for the researchers working in this area to articulate their
research-like results in systems terms. Such results come in various guises,
e.g., the properties and structures of certain classes of systems, methods for
using the system notion to generate collective action or collective control
over action, guidelines for building on the available research-like results, etc.
This literature gives the impression that there can be a plurality of
‘research frameworks’ ( ‘frameworks of idea’, research languages, or research
paradigms) in order to guide and inform applied systems research type of work.
Whereas the action
research debate has got embroiled in a phenomenon that might be described as
the evaporation of the scientific framework, the management systems literature
has managed to retain its research impetus through a phenomenon that might be
described as a proliferation of scientific frameworks guided by a
meta-disciplinary vocabulary, i.e., the vocabulary of systems..
The present study has
produced another meta-disciplinary vocabulary, i.e., the vocabulary of
agency. It is logically distinct from the vocabulary of systems as
it focuses not on systems per se but on the capacities and the
interactive processes that help bring forth systems and such other resources
which function as a support to practical action. The vocabulary of agency
strives to articulate these interactive processes, the obstacles, and the
requirements to make it into a research-like activity. It functions as a
generic conceptual framework for action-oriented research as such research
generally involves the bringing forth of practically useful resources of
various types.
The conceptual framework
emphasises three crucial requirements with regard to action-oriented research:
(i) Such research has to involve the production of a resource which
provides a useful support within a practical context leading to local
improvements, (ii) it also has to involve some type of systematic
improvement of the interactive processes, methods, tools, etc., such that these
might be formally specified and transferred to other contexts resulting in a
general rise in the capacity to accomplish such local improvements (this is
termed as global improvement in the vocabulary), and (iii) there has to
be a type of operational coupling between (i) and (ii) such that each
provides a constructive and critical influence on the other.
The framework helps in
thinking clearly about some of the difficulties of fulfilling the above three
requirements. Each requirement could become quite challenging in certain
circumstances. It might be difficult to achieve the desired type of local
improvement if no particular resource could be conceived that would
yield such improvement. Even if a resource could be conceived, there
might be difficulties in bringing it forth, maintaining it against various
disturbances, facilitating its use, ensuring that the improvement is in fact
occurring, etc. The second requirement, i.e., that of formally specifying and
transferring the processes, methods, etc., could offer another set of
challenges. A third set of challenges would be related to the task of ensuring
an operational coupling of the type mentioned above.
The vocabulary of agency
clarifies a number of concepts which should fertilise the thinking about the
above challenges. The core notions of agency and enhancing agency
provide the broad direction along which the challenges might be addressed. The
notions of role, resource, mobility, form of
interaction, agency-enhancing device, etc., provide the required
practical guidance for addressing these challenges systematically.
10.1.3 Demands on Action-oriented
Researchers
The study implies the
following demands on action-oriented researchers:
10.2 Future
Directions
A number of topics need to
be addressed in the future, in order to explore the potential of the conceptual
framework developed in this study and to enrich it further. Four such topics
have been identified below.
Repertoire of
Agency-enhancing Devices
According to the conceptual
framework, two types of accumulation of results can happen from action-oriented
research guided by the vocabulary of agency. On the one hand there would
be an accumulation of agency-enhancing devices and on the other there
would be an increase in the general capacity to bring forth new and useful resources
(i.e., enhanced agency at local and global levels). To be true to this
type of research direction, a repertoire of such devices needs to be built up
over time as experience of such research accumulates. These devices must be so
specified that these might be transferred with a minimum of effort. Only future
research will clarify whether a generalised repertoire of such devices is
possible or whether many specialised ones will have to be produced.
New ideas for innovating
such devices might arise from several research fields, especially those
concerned with the study of some type of collective phenomena. Such phenomena
are known to arise at many different levels and domains of reality. The research
fields dealing with such collective phenomena must be viewed as sources of new
ideas for action-oriented research in the future.
Research on Collective
Phenomena
Collective phenomena are
known to arise at sub-atomic, atomic, molecular, organismic, and
social/cultural levels. Several research fields have been dealing with the
spontaneous emergence of order or pattern within their domains of
investigation. So pervasive have been these phenomena that a number of
interdisciplinary theoretical perspectives dealing with these have emerged and
attracted researchers from different backgrounds. Examples of such perspective
would include:
self-organisation
theory (see
Cybernetics, Systems Theory and Complexity page at http://www.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc/complexity.html)
actor-network
theory (see
Actor-Network Theory page at http://www.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/act_net.html)
coversation
theory (see
Cybernetics and Conversation page at http://www.pangaro.com/published/cyb-and-con.html),
and
co-ordination
theory (see The
Center for Coordination Science page at http://ccs.mit.edu/).
The ongoing research using
these theoretical perspectives should provide a number of ideas to innovate new
types of agency-enhancing device. Such devices should be put to
experimental use in action research and systems practice projects.
Systems Practice
Systems thinking and
practice today seems to be as concerned with systems methodologies as it
is with systems theories. While the latter seeks to formally describe
certain classes of systems (e.g., ‘living systems’), the former focuses on
implementing an interactive process in order to bring forth instances of some
class of systems. The latter type of systems thinking and systems practice has
attracted many action researchers in the recent years. This kind of thinking
and practice has been informed by the conceptual vocabulary of systems.
However, since such practice involves the production of useful resources
(systems in this case), the vocabulary of agency can also contribute to
such practice. The latter vocabulary would focus the practitioners’ attention
on issues which the vocabulary of systems ignores, e.g., the issues of agency,
role, mobility, operational coupling, etc.
Therefore, it might be
worth exploring in the future, whether the vocabulary of agency could
contribute to improving the range of activities generally referred to as
systems practice today. More specifically, it would be worthwhile to identify
the issues that remain unaddressed within a systems thinking framework. It
would remain to be established whether the vocabulary of agency could
deal with these issues in an effective manner.
Management Studies
The duration of the Fifth
Annual International Conference on Advances in Management, coincided with
the writing of this chapter (see ICAM 1998 Programme page at
http://members.aol.com/icam2000/1998prog.htm). This provided an opportunity to
reflect on the nature and relevance of the present study in the light of the
current academic discussions about ‘advances in management’. The issues of the
present variety and possible future directions for management research were
discussed in this conference (Lundberg, et al., 1998). A distinction
between ‘programmatic research’ and ‘opportunistic studies’ was made in this
discussion (ibid., 386). The programmatic component of research should
strive to maintain and improve the added value that research brings into a
context, even in the face of an unstable environment and changing experiences.
The Conference also drew
attention to another fundamental issue concerning the type of knowledge
management research is expected to produce:
If
managers want goal-based "in order to" knowledge while academics
produce empirical "because of" knowledge, then application of the
latter will seldom provide managers with what they desire (Lundberg, et al.,
1998, p.389).
Thus the Conference seemed
to raise the question of how to design ‘programmatic research’ so as to produce
‘in order to’ knowledge. It might be argued that the research programme of
management science (or operational research), when it was initiated about 50
years ago, was also an example of ‘programmatic research’ so as to produce ‘in
order to’ knowledge. No doubt, that stream of academic work has yielded various
significant results. However, several changes in the programmatic component of
management science have been proposed and discussed over the years (e.g.,
‘…
the story has moved on: there is a new script to write, a new show to put on
and there are new roles for us to play’ (Ormerod, 1998, p.429).
The vocabulary of agency
might be the source of a ‘new script’ for management science. Such a script
would not focus on the principles of designing or optimising systems but on the
conditions that enable various organisational (or community-based) actors to
design, produce, use, and optimise whatever systems or other resources
they might need from time to time.
The contemporary management
literature seems to focus on the need to build new tools, new skills, and new
institutions in order to deal with the various seemingly intractable problems
of organisations and society, as the following quotes indicate:
‘…
the importance of providing the tools and conditions that liberate people to
use their brainpower to make a difference in a world of constant challenge and
change’ (Kanter, 1997, p.xiii).
‘…
throwing money at problems will not solve them … Money by itself, without skill
building or institutional change, can produce dependency, bureaucracy, and
temptations to fraud’ (ibid., p.279).
However, there seems to be
a realisation in the literature that something needs to be changed in the
present type of scientific activity in management so as to fulfil the above
kind of requirements. This has produced clarion calls to progress ‘beyond the
fads’ (
The search for such
revitalisation and reorientation is also evident in the social sciences, where
questions like the following have been asked recently:
Is
there socially-located truth that is useful, and has at the same time some
basis of credibility beyond the assertions of the author? That is, can there be
truth that is collectively validated and controlled but beyond the imperative
claims of the current participants in the immediate political battles? And if
so, how may we arrive at it? (Wallerstein, 1998).
The
conceptual framework expressed by the vocabulary of agency appears to
exhibit certain desirable features to qualify as a suitable point of departure
for such a process of revitalisation and reorientation in management studies.
The framework emphasises capacity building by focusing upon specifying a
repertoire of agency-enhancing devices. These devices are expected to
produce the desired effects within the local sphere of ‘the current
participants’. These are also expected to remain as a form of ‘socially-located
truth’ available for harnessing by other participants occupying different
spheres of action.
|
Appendix A |
Appendix B |